Just bought a HRM

RoyBeck
RoyBeck Posts: 947 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
From Argos. It's called target fitness and cost £29.99. It's a watch and a heart rate belt. Can it be used without the belt is my first question?

Replies

  • speedgoose
    speedgoose Posts: 295
    I have not used that brand, however, I would not recommend using a HRM without the belt. It's way more accurate with it.
  • RoyBeck
    RoyBeck Posts: 947 Member
    I have not used that brand, however, I would not recommend using a HRM without the belt. It's way more accurate with it.

    Thanks for your quick reply. There's not a very good diagram but am I right that the belt goes just around the middle of my stomach? The watch reads from the belt?
  • TeamDale54
    TeamDale54 Posts: 186
    I have a Polar HRM with a chest strap and a watch that displays my HR. I use it for all my workouts. They say the chest straps are the most accurate.
  • danofthedead1979
    danofthedead1979 Posts: 362 Member
    You need to place it just below the chest, you need the belt on as that picks up your hr. In fact on some gym machines, they will read your belt, so sometimes its the watch you don't need
  • triskaidekaphile13
    triskaidekaphile13 Posts: 92 Member
    My HRM goes around my rib cage and the sensors need to be near enough to read my heart rate. Around my stomach would be too far away I think.
  • triskaidekaphile13
    triskaidekaphile13 Posts: 92 Member
    Is it this one: http://reviews.argos.co.uk/1493-en_gb/3028539/reviews.htm

    It describes it as a chest strap.
  • RoyBeck
    RoyBeck Posts: 947 Member
    Yes that is the one I'm almost certain.
  • RoyBeck
    RoyBeck Posts: 947 Member
    You need to place it just below the chest, you need the belt on as that picks up your hr. In fact on some gym machines, they will read your belt, so sometimes its the watch you don't need

    Ok thanks Dan. I'm really keen to get a more accurate idea of calories burnt but just followed the guidelines and run on the spot for one minute and the cals stayed on zero. This was without the chest strap though could this be why?
  • FitNurseLex
    FitNurseLex Posts: 66 Member
    You definitely need the strap for accuracy, and you need to place it on your chest, just underneath your pecs. (my Polar HRM actually won't even display any stats at all unless the strap is used.) The actual watch is just the display, while the strap and HRM piece are the "computer". So for it to be effective, you'll need to use the strap.
  • RoyBeck
    RoyBeck Posts: 947 Member
    You definitely need the strap for accuracy, and you need to place it on your chest, just underneath your pecs. (my Polar HRM actually won't even display any stats at all unless the strap is used.) The actual watch is just the display, while the strap and HRM piece are the "computer". So for it to be effective, you'll need to use the strap.

    Right so could that be why the timer was ok when I pressed start but the calorie counter or any other info wasn't moving from zero?
  • RoyBeck
    RoyBeck Posts: 947 Member
    Ok thanks everyone going for a run now and will put the chest strap on as you've said and hope for the best.
  • RoyBeck
    RoyBeck Posts: 947 Member
    Hey again!

    Ok just run my 5k in 0:35:13 and the HRM seemed to be working great! The 5k burnt 503 according to the HRM but I thought that was high? I programmed my age, height and weight into it beforehand so is this ok? I know the general rule is 100cals per mile????

    Also, my HR was at 160 at its highest during the run.

    I saved the details to data and started afresh for the mile long walk home. It said I burnt 210 walking the mile home plus 10 minutes around the supermarket too?? That seemed high as well?
  • Chieflrg
    Chieflrg Posts: 9,097 Member
    Hey again!

    Ok just run my 5k in 0:35:13 and the HRM seemed to be working great! The 5k burnt 503 according to the HRM but I thought that was high? I programmed my age, height and weight into it beforehand so is this ok? I know the general rule is 100cals per mile????

    I saved the details to data and started afresh for the mile long walk home. It said I burnt 210 walking the mile home plus 10 minutes around the supermarket too?? That seemed high as well?
    Your calories burned are not only you age, gender, and weight. Its your fitness level. 35 minutes is near right for 500 calories burned if you are in the 200lbs + range off the top of my head.

    Most if not all HRM are used for exercise not for walking. around the supermarket. They are built to read when your heart is a high rate at either running or swimming, I would assume cycling too as long as your heart is at a high rate. Something that would actually make you sweat. I know fitbit would give you an accurate reading on just normal activities such as shopping, but there really isn't any calories burned to log IMHO of walking unless you are obese. or speed walking.
  • RoyBeck
    RoyBeck Posts: 947 Member
    Hey again!

    Ok just run my 5k in 0:35:13 and the HRM seemed to be working great! The 5k burnt 503 according to the HRM but I thought that was high? I programmed my age, height and weight into it beforehand so is this ok? I know the general rule is 100cals per mile????

    I saved the details to data and started afresh for the mile long walk home. It said I burnt 210 walking the mile home plus 10 minutes around the supermarket too?? That seemed high as well?
    Your calories burned are not only you age, gender, and weight. Its your fitness level. 35 minutes is near right for 500 calories burned if you are in the 200lbs + range off the top of my head.

    Most if not all HRM are used for exercise not for walking. around the supermarket. They are built to read when your heart is a high rate at either running or swimming, I would assume cycling too as long as your heart is at a high rate. Something that would actually make you sweat. I know fitbit would give you an accurate reading on just normal activities such as shopping, but there really isn't any calories burned to log IMHO of walking unless you are obese. or speed walking.

    Hi mate thanks for replying. I'm 213 currently so that sounds right hopefully.

    I set the HRM on 'treadmill' for my run and saved that data. When I walked home I set it to 'Walk' and noticed my HR dropping from the 150's to 130, 120, 110 etc as I'd expect after a run. If it has a walk option would that not be fairly accurate still?
  • tinamariecleg
    tinamariecleg Posts: 99 Member
    I have a Polar with a chest strap that was suggested by a trainer. I love it.
  • Chieflrg
    Chieflrg Posts: 9,097 Member

    I set the HRM on 'treadmill' for my run and saved that data. When I walked home I set it to 'Walk' and noticed my HR dropping from the 150's to 130, 120, 110 etc as I'd expect after a run. If it has a walk option would that not be fairly accurate still?

    Back in April I was near your weight & running at least 5K every day. Time was near 28 mins & around 450 cals. I was also 43 years old at the time so your reading sounds right to me.

    I'm not familiar with the brand you mentioned. If it has a walk option, I would say then it is built differently than most. Curious what it say your burning for walking at certain distances/speeds...cool sir. I still wouldn't log it, but maybe that is more leaning towards my model (polar4).
  • RoyBeck
    RoyBeck Posts: 947 Member

    I set the HRM on 'treadmill' for my run and saved that data. When I walked home I set it to 'Walk' and noticed my HR dropping from the 150's to 130, 120, 110 etc as I'd expect after a run. If it has a walk option would that not be fairly accurate still?

    Back in April I was near your weight & running at least 5K every day. Time was near 28 mins & around 450 cals.

    I'm not familiar with the brand you mentioned. If it has a walk option, I would say then it is built differently than most. Curious what it say your burning for walking at certain distances/speeds...cool sir. I still wouldn't log it, but maybe that is more leaning towards my model (polar4).

    I walk/run on a treadmill 5 days per week and only ever log 300 into MFP and eat those back to allow for errors. I don't log anything else but just want to get an idea of how many calories I burn just walking. The options in settings on mine are aerobic, walk, jog, treadmill, bike and run.

    To give you an idea I started it on the 12 minute journey TO the gym. It said I'd burnt 62 calories and my HR was between 72-79.

    I'm just hoping its fairly accurate.
  • Mokey41
    Mokey41 Posts: 5,769 Member
    Just note that a HRM is made for steady state cardio. If you aren't getting your HR up it won't be accurate. 72 - 79 bpm is pretty low for it to be registering correctly.
  • RoyBeck
    RoyBeck Posts: 947 Member
    Just note that a HRM is made for steady state cardio. If you aren't getting your HR up it won't be accurate. 72 - 79 bpm is pretty low for it to be registering correctly.

    That makes sense and falls in line with what chief was saying. 200 and something for a slow mile walk is Definately wrong I know!

    Just confused by the 'walk' option setting though but I will only be using it for my runs anyway so not too worried.

    Thanks for all your help guys n gals!!

    Feel free to add me too anyone.

Categories